re: #102 jackflash

This points out the absurdity of our copyright laws. Why is 1984, published in 1948, still under copyright?? 61 years is an outrageous amout of time to allow any work to be under monopoly ownership. I understand all those arguments saying that we need such laws to encourage creativity and innovation, and I agree. But eighteen years?? (I forget the difference in length of coverage between copyrights and patents - maybe copyrights are less than 18, but not much.)

Certainly 5 years is more than enough to get any author some monopoly profits to reward his labor and genius. Patents are similarly out of control. This system needs to be reconsidered, in my opinion.

JF

Copyright law in the US is a mess - to put it mildly. It was totally muddled by the Millenium Copyright Act, or whatever it’s called, which was written with enormous input from media lobbying groups. Basically, copyrights are now pretty much forever; a corporate entity can keep updating copyrights they hold for decades. There may be a limit of a century or so; the original goal was to keep the old definition - copyrights were active for the lifetime of the work’s creator plus 20(?) years - and make “lifetime” applicable to “the existence of the corporate entity holding the copyright.” That didn’t quite fly, but the length is now enormously extended.

There are also a number of bizarre irregularities that arise with older works, as some works copyrighted under older implementations got grandfathered in, others had already entered the public domain, and what not. Being a copyright lawyer these days is an exercise in frustration and futility.

Patents are simple. 20 years worth of protection from the date they’re granted, with a few relatively minor exceptions.